Spencer Creek Pilot Watershed Analysis

Spencer Creek Pilot Watershed Analysis A day of huckleberry picking at Buck Lake around 1905 (photo courtesy of the Anderson family photo collection). August 1995 Appendix 1 Preparers 7 1895 7 1895 Appendix 1-2 Name Agency Position Andrew T. Peavy USFS Winema National Forest Forest GIS Coordinator Andy S. Hamilton BLM Klarnath Falls Resource Area Aquatic Biologist Michael W. Bechdolt BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Timber Manager Patricia R. Buettner USFS Winema National Forest/ Wildlife Biologist BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Mike Mathews USFS Winema National Forest Hydrologist Kristin M. Bald BLM Lakeview District Team Leader Tom Robertson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Aquatic Ecosystems Coordinator Robin Bown U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Supervisory Wildlife Biologist Scott Senter BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Outdoor Recreat on Planner Rob McEnroe BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Timber Sale Plarner GIS Bill Yehle BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Archaeologist Bill Lindsey BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Range Conservationist Lou Whiteaker BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Botanist Heather Haycen BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Visual Information Specia, st Jim Vienop BLM Klamath Falls Resource Area Writer/Editor 7. 18 95 Appendix 1-3 Appendix 2 Vegetation 7 18 95 Spencer Creek Watershed Analysis Appendix 2-27185 7/1 8,95 stages using the two different methods Vegetation- described above. In summary, it is important to note that Seral Stage historically the watershed contained about 8 to 11 percent nonforest land. In addition, the Breakdowns watershed had been impacted by fires historica,!y. Based upon Leiberg's descnp- (1899, 1945, and tion, the -Foresteo Area - 2MBF to 5MBF- was the result of an older burn. it is assumed that about 10 to 20 percent of the 1994) watershed was probably in early or early-mid seral stage at any one time due to repeated 1899 Leiberg Data fires. Based upon a comparison of percentages above, it is assumed that the watershed was probably composed of 65 to 75 Leiberg had 4 categories: percent mid and late seral forests at any 1. Nonforest Area: This included one time. burned areas, glades, meadows, marshes, lakes, semiarid tracts, etc. 2. Badly burned areas: We assumed that these were forested lands that had received some type of fire. They were classified as early sera] stage. 3. Forested Area: included all forested area that contained trees 4 inches in diameter or greater. We classified all these as either mid or late seral stage. 4. Logged Area (None found within this watershed) In order to derive numbers for Table 2-1, we averaged the percentage of land in each c!assifcation stated above for the 8 townships surrounding and within the Spencer Creek watershed. The numbers were obtained from Leiberg's description. Note: Later in the analysis process, Leiberg's 1899 vegetation map was digitized just for the watershed boundaries. This later analysis is a better representation of the actual historic breakdown of seral stages in the watershed, but the digitizing was completed so late in the process. that we can only include it in the Appendix. The percentages of the different seral stages is somewhat different that the other method, b 'hey: are still reasonably close. Table 2 -1 srowv.s the percent of the different seral 7 18 95 Appendix 2-3 Spencer Creek Watershed Analysis Table 2-1. Comparison of Leiberg's 1899 Data: Comparison between averaging the 8 Townships within and surrounding the watershed and a digitized version of just that area within the watershed. Seral Stage Averaging 8 Legend used in Using the Townships Leiberg's Digitized Vegetation Map. version of Within Watershed Leiberg's map. only. Within Watershed only. Non Forest 11.4% Rock (Nonforest) 1% Marshes,!Meadows 8% Non Forest 6.7% Deforested area Burned as a result of 8% fires Badly Burned 17% Forested Area - 11ic 2MBF to 5MBF1"AC (early-mid?) Forested Area 18% 5MBF to 1OMBF,AC Forested 64% Forested Area 56% 10MBF to 25MBF. AC Note: Any pols - :s'er in GIS with a prefix 1945 Seral Stage Data of 34 indicates c ear-cut or selectively logged areas now restcc 'rg. in Spencer Creek, Using the 1945 Legend For County Forest approximately 15.367 acres (28 percent of Type Map, Eastern Oregon and Eastern the watershed) had Deen harvested prior to Washington. Prepared by Forest Survey, recording this data. Pacific Northwest Forest and Experiment Station", forest types were classified into seral stages based upon the limited description of that fores: type. Figure 2-2 lists the description gr.-n and the subsequent seral stage that it was abeled for this watershed analysis Appendix 2-4 7 18 95 1994 Seral Stage Clas- The USFS had previously mapped plant sification Using PMR associations on their lands within the watershed. In order to be consistent with (Pacific Meridian Re- their plant associations, William Hopkins and sources) Mike Bechdolt, using Hopkins (1979) plant assoc:ation guide for the South Chdioquin and Karnatn Ranger Districts, mappec the The PMR ciassified the fiested areas into a plant associations for the remaining portiuo combination of sizes and structures. A of the watershed (private and BLM-admin s- complete description of the different sizes tered lands). Mapping was done in the field and structures that PMR classifies the but under a limited time constraint, so there stands into is available in the Winema may likely be some corrections to make in National Forest PMR Handbook. For this the future. Plant associations are shown in analysis, the size/structure classifications Figure 2-1 listed in Table 2-2 were found in the watershed and subsequently classified into a For the 1945 species group inventory data, seral stage or nonfo est category. Note that the descriptions listed in Figure 2-1 for the some areas were treated (harvested) after different timber types were used to map arid the time the PMR data was collected. Each determine the amount of acres of a domi- area that was treated after 1987 was field nant species. There was some discrepancy checked and assigned a size/structure in the classification they put on a polygon; classification and canopy closure based for example, 21 PONDEROSA PINE - upoan field review This was done only on SMALL. and the percentage by scecies that federal Lands. On private lands, the data occurred in that polygon. Sometimes the was not updated. However, because most percentage of white fir in that polygon was of the private land was already classified as higher than the percentage listed for pine. early, early-mid, or mid, we did not fee! it yet they called the polygon a PONDEROSA was as important to update the private and. PINE, SMALL. Therefore, 1945 species The data for private land reported in th s group data was somewhat hatd to interpret. analysis is likely more conservative than Table 2-2 is a summary of that query. wniat is actually there at the present tirme. Much of the private land has been thinned to For the 1994 species group information, treat the ongoing salvage problem. The PMR data was used. Sorne of the PNIR percentage of eariy and early-mid is like'y speces group classifications had to be somewhat higher or the private land than is lumped together for comparson purposes reported in this arnaiss. The 1994 spec es group PMR data was grouped as outrined in Tab'e 2-3. The data Note: For a complete description of what likely has some discrepancies, but does give these codes mean, please refer to the PMR a general indication of how much of the handbook available at the Winema National watershed is likely dominated by a particular Forest Supervisor's Office or the Klamath species or vegetative type. Falls BLM office. 7 18 95 Appendix 2-5 Spencer Creek Watershed Analysis PLANT COMMUNITY AREA ASSOCIATION DESCRIPTION (ACRES) PERCENT CL-S4-13 Lodgepole/huckleberry/forb 3,643 7% CL-S4-14 Loogepole grouse huckleberry! long-stolon sedge 60 0 01^!.% CM-S111 Mountain hemlock/grouse hucktecerry 1,320 2%z CP Ponderosa pine 520 0.96 % CR-Gi -11 Snasta red firilong-stolon sedge 903 2% CR-SI-12 Shasta red fir-mountain hemlock/ pinemat manzanita/long-stolon sedge 1,775 3% CR-S3- 11 Shasta red fir-white fir! chinquapin -prince s pine, long-stolon sedge 10,445 19%4 CW-C2-15 M:xed conifer,snowbrush-bearberry 19,635 36°o CW-Hi -12 Wh ite fir/chinquapin-boxwood- prrce s pine 13,641 25° CW-M1-11 White fir-alder/shrub meadow 122 0.23%o FW Forb meadow 58 0.11%O MW Wet meadow - surface wet/ all growing season 1,466 3^o NR ncrforest rock 512 0 95%o WL non-moving water 2 0.00%o F~gure 2- P a'-' ASScSa w s Fot-t n the Spencer Creek Watershed Appendix 2-6 7 18 95 Fire data records were obtained from the Canopy closure for existing stands was USFS GIS database for USDA Forest obtained using the 5 PMR canopy closure Service-administered lands. Records were designations (see Table 2-3). Field visits from 1961 to 1992. The years 1993 and were made and a canopy closure estimate 1994 were not in the USFS database yet. It given to all areas treated after 1987. is important to note that there were quite a Canopy closure for historic stands (1945) few fires in the watershed on USDA Forest was speculated from available aerial photo- Service-administered lands from lightning graphs of the area stormrs. For private and BLM-administered lands, QOF (Oregon Department of Forestry) records were obtained.

Load more